Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go America!)

Real aviation things here. News, items of interest, information, questions, etc!

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby beefhole » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:29 pm

Argh.. ::)  Once more before I go to the beach.

I have gone to great lengths to stress that I am not trying to say the USAF kicks everybody elses ass, we have the best pilots, and we are 100% ironclad unbeatable.

Felix, I don't know what the point of your post was (agreement/mockery/criticism/whatever), but, yes that's what I'm saying (although I didn't say #3, somebody else did).  It would appear as though every item on that list is true, to the extent of my knowledge.

I continue to say that we're not the best because, AS REQUESTED by the mods, I'm trying very hard to maintain some level of friendly diplomacy here, so this doesn't turn into any more of a pissing match than it already is.  Is it that hard to see?

So, the only two things that I've been saying that matter-

EXPERIENCE
PRACTICE
(in large-scale modern air wars)

THANKYOU CRUMBSO for posting the first thing that actually pertains to my original argument in the last three pages.  

Good points-I personally think (obviously don't have any first-hand experience) that FF incidents are, at most, 50% command's fault, because in the end it's the pilot who is making the id and pulling the trigger-I believe this happened because the convoy didn't have the required something or other that glows when pilots look at it through something-I know, very official, but all I know is there is something that marks friendlies to pilots, placed inside their vehicles.  That doesn't excuse the pilot, of course, and I'm sure we could find other unexplainable FF situations involving US planes.

J, I would agree practice doesn't make perfect-it doesn't mean that we haven't had more of it than most other nations.  Once again, all I'm saying is we've had more practice.  Not that we're the best.  I may THINK, personally, that we're the best, but once again, back to the whole diplomacy thing.  I'm trying to stick to facts here-the primary one I'm using:

-we've been engaged in more modern mass-scale air wars, and whoever participated, it was under US command.

There.  That's my argument.  Man, I should've just posted that the first time :P ::)

I'll refer to my buddy as Jeff.

Never once has he ever said "yeah, we're the best", he was just telling me how we've gotten really, really good at keeping hundreds of planes in the air0primarily because we've been doing it since 'nam.

I'm hoping that clears it up.
User avatar
beefhole
Major
Major
 
Posts: 3804
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 8:57 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby C » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:56 pm

Hooray for the RAF.......! :D Jolly good show. I have always believed that & nobody can persuade me otherwise.

I wouldn't expect Beefy to agree. It's perfectly natural that we all think our Air Force is best. Just as well really. ::) ;)


Naturally, although I would be biased... ;) ;D
User avatar
C
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 11977
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Hagar » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:57 pm

LOL You put up a good fight there & stuck to your guns. Well done Beefy old chap. ;)

I might have wandered a little off-topic but you couldn't expect us to let you get away with a subject line like that now could you? Just remember that confidence is all very well but over-confidence leads to complacency. The bigger the organisation the more unwieldy it becomes. Mistakes are made in wartime & always will be. It's been proven throughout history that the side that makes the least mistakes wins the battle.

Still not sure what this has to do with the Typhoon but I've spouted far too much already.
Last edited by Hagar on Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30853
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Craig. » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:01 pm

Still not sure what this has to do with the Typhoon but I've spouted far too much already
He knew with typhoon being soooo popular, no other aircraft would have gotten the same interest ;) ;D
I'm out this is turning into a never ending topic ::) :D
User avatar
Craig.
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 15569
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 10:04 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby eno » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:11 pm

LOL You put up a good fight there & stuck to your guns. Well done Beefy old chap. ;)


Hes's stuck to his guns over nothing .......... apart from the fact that the Americans are good at keeping 100s of aircraft in the air ....... That's only true because they have 100s to do it with...... What they do with them is still open for debate.  ;) ;) ;D ;D
[align=center][img]http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/imaginsigeno.jpg[/img][/align]
User avatar
eno
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 6706
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: Derbyshire UK

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Hagar » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:30 pm

most of the technology was spearheaded by them

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's a lot more sophisticated now but the basic principle of fighter control was established during the BoB in 1940. Combined tactical support was developed by the DAF under Sir Harry Broadhurst, first in Africa & then Italy. This was used to great effect by the Allied air forces during & after the Normandy Invasion.
Another important relationship, however, evolved between the Ninth Air Force's IX TAC and the 2 TAF's 83 Group. IX TAC's Elwood Quesada and 83 Group's commander, Air Vice Marshal Harry Broadhurst, worked well together. For example, after troops were ashore at Normandy, control of tactical aircraft passed from shipboard control centers to two land-based control centers: a IX TAC control center in the American sector of the beachhead, and an 83 Group control center located in the British sector. Coningham later praised the "excellent teamwork" between the two control centers. This teamwork would be refined even further in the weeks ahead.

Altogether, the tactical air forces had 2,434 fighters and fighter- bombers, together with approximately 700 light and medium bombers available for the Normandy campaign. This force first struck against the Germans during the preparatory campaign prior to D-Day. At D minus 60 days, Allied air forces began their interdiction attacks against rail centers; these attacks increased in ferocity and tempo up to the eve of the invasion itself and were accompanied by strategic bomber raids against the same targets. The bridge campaign, which aimed at isolating the battlefield by cutting Seine bridges below Paris and Loire bridges below Orleans, began on D minus 46. Here, fighter-bombers proved more efficient than medium or heavy bombers, largely because their agility enabled them to make pinpoint attacks in a way that the larger bombers, committed to horizontal bombing runs, could not. The fighter-bombers also had the speed, firepower, and maneuverability to evade or even dominate the Luftwaffe. Though ground fire and (rarely) fighters did claim some attacking fighter-bombers, the loss rate was considerably less than it would have been with conventional attack or dive bombers. By D minus 21, Allied air forces were attacking German airfields within a radius of 130 miles of the battle area and these operations too continued up to the assault on the beachhead.

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg4.htm
Last edited by Hagar on Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30853
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Wing Nut » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:53 pm

I thought the US and Great Britain were supposed to be allies here.  Why do we even need to argue about who is better at what?  This whole thread is argumentive and pointless.
[img]http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1440377488.jpg[/img]
User avatar
Wing Nut
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 12720
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:25 am

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Felix/FFDS » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:03 pm

[quote]
Felix, I don't know what the point of your post was (agreement/mockery/criticism/whatever), but, yes that's what I'm saying (although I didn't say #3, somebody else did).
Last edited by Felix/FFDS on Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Felix/FFDS
User avatar
Felix/FFDS
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 16776432
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 9:42 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby JBaymore » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:24 pm

[quote]As to a certain person's comment on the person I know in DC.... I will neither confirm or deny any assertion I may have made, or will make ...
Image ImageIntel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 720
User avatar
JBaymore
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 10020
Joined: Sat May 24, 2003 9:15 am
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Hagar » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:15 am

[quote]I thought the US and Great Britain were supposed to be allies here.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30853
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby Bazza » Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm

If a recent documentary on Discovery was accurate, pilots are well on the way to being taken out of the equation as unmanned craft become more efficient.     Which raises the question of which country would have the most "flight simmers" to fly them ?    I might come out of retirement ?
Image
Where's the throttle...?
User avatar
Bazza
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:39 am

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby beefhole » Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:53 pm

I might have wandered a little off-topic but you couldn't expect us to let you get away with a subject line like that now could you?

Sorry, I regretted it instantly and never got around to changing it... I started the thread while I was in Aspen with my buddy Casey ("Jeff's" half brother), and he thought it'd be funny If I added the Go America! part.  Once again, I regret it ::)

Yes I gathered this was your point but what are you using it to argue? Because the statement is pretty meaningless in itself.

Errm ya I just realized that.  It was being used to support my argument that we did infrastructure better.  Sorry bout that.

The entire point of this thread was to argue that the individual characteristics of one aircraft v. another aren't always the most important thing-for example, who would win in a one on one dogfight?  While it might be fun to speculate, it actually isn't as important in the real world, when one side with inferior fighters can keep more them in the air, at a higher altitude, for a longer period of time and coordinate effectively with AWACS, Tankers, etc., they generally have the upper hand.
User avatar
beefhole
Major
Major
 
Posts: 3804
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 8:57 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go Americ

Postby hatter » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:33 am

...The entire point of this thread was to argue that the individual characteristics of one aircraft v. another aren't always the most important thing...


I agree. Although they are a big part, with aircraft that are as closely matched as any modern western frontline fighter, they clearly do not mean everything.
hatter
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Previous

Return to Real Aviation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 256 guests